Quranic oaths

A Study of the Qur’ānic Oaths
An English Translation of
Im‘ān Fī Aqsām al-Qur’ān
Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī
Translated by
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
AL-MAWRID
51-K Model Town, Lahore

A Study of the Qur’ānic Oaths 2
Contents
Translator’s Note 1
Introduction 5
Three Questions on the Qur’ānic Oaths 7
Imām Rāzī’s Viewpoint 9
Ibn Qayyim’s Viewpoint 16
Plan of the Present Book 21
History, Form, Meaning and Use of Oath 23
Object is not Essential to Oath 31
Meaning of Oath used with the Object 35
Honorific Oath 39
Oath Sanctifying the Object 42
Argumentative Oath 52
Argumentative Oath in Demosthenes 57
Argumentative Oath in Eupolis 59
Evidentiary Significations of Argumentative Oath 61
Evidence from the Qur’ān 63
Causes of Obscurity of the Correct View 69
Rhetorical Aspect and Intricacies of Oath 73
Desirable and Undesirable Oath 84
Evangelical Prohibition of Oath 87
Wisdom behind Specificness of the Command 92
Proper Use of Different Oath Formulas 96
Conclusion 98

Translator’s Note
This is a translation of a monograph titled Im‘ān fī Aqsām al-
Qur’ān by Ḥamīd al-Dīn Farāhī. The author conceived it as one
of the introductions to his unfinished commentary on the Holy
Qur’ān, later published as Niẓām al-Qur’ān. This book discusses
some issues attending the uses of oaths in the Qur’ān.
The Qur’ān employs oaths frequently in order to affirm a
claim-statement. In the Qur’ān, the Almighty has sworn by
Himself and by many of His creations (for instance the sun,
moon, stars, winds, fruits, towns, etc). These occasions in the
Qur’ān have engendered questions that have baffled the
commentators from the earliest times who, while trying to
explain the scriptural text, appear to be grappling with the
difficult questions on the nature and significance of these oaths –
questions that are rooted either in the Muslim expectation related
to the relationship between the oath-taker and the subject of the
oaths or in the peculiar semantic conclusions, which almost
always accompany an oath in Arabic language. These questions
unavoidably force themselves upon the commentators because of
a number of reasons:
1. In the ordinary course of language, oaths are taken to
emphasize and register the truth of one’s statement, by invoking
something holy. Linguistically and religiously, an oath-taker
always swears an oath by a higher being that is nobler than and
distanced from the oath-taker. The oath draws strength from the
grace, sanctity, nobility, taboo or holiness of the being by which
it is taken. In other words, an oath-taker implicitly belittles his
being in comparison with the being by which he takes an oath.
This is apparently done to attach significance and truth-claim to
the proposition following the oath by drawing epistemological
strength from the unquestioned sanctity or widely accorded
reverence for such a being. The ordinary creatures of God are
way below the Divine station and it is even blasphemous to
compare the Creator with His creations. Therefore, many

Qur’ānic oaths, particularly those which are sworn by created
beings, do not fit well in the Divine text. Oaths are
conventionally sworn by sacred objects. However, in the Qur’ān,
on many occasions, the Almighty swears by ordinary,
insignificant and so to say ‘profane’ thk7/TT1culd God
idraw epistem8.65ologcanl strength from8.65o petg3.59(s)24y
nshculd Godtm8.62i tseek ringforcemnti for Hi-6.4(tmselfin the Dfirst-6.4

earliest times. Farāhī’s contribution stands out in the background
of the fact that despite a lot of space these questions occupy in
medieval Muslim writers, they were apparently not able to
formulate a consistent response.
As usual, Farāhī adopts a principle stance and offers a

translation and by extending valuable suggestions. Mr Shehzad
Saleem was generous enough to review a few sections of the
translation. Mr. Asif Iftikhar has always been there with his
words of encouragement. Mr Manzoor ul-Hassan provided the
necessary logistic and administrative support for getting this
work published as did Mr Azeem Ayub and all the support staff
of al-Mawrid, who contributed towards the publication of this
work. My gratitude is due to all of them. In fact, I cannot be
thankful enough. And I would be deeply indebted to the readers
too, if they could suggest improvements in the translation,
which, by all means, is not the last word.
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
Al-Mawrid, Lahore
2008.
_______________

Section: 1
Introduction
Glory to the Lord, to whose lordship every creature testifies
through its very existence; sun sings His glory; moon prostrates
itself before Him; the land takes refuge in Him, its peaks as well
as valleys; oceans turn to Him in their ebbs and flows, as has
been attested by the Lord in His book: “Glorify Him the heavens,
all seven of them, and the earth and what lies in them. There is
nothing which does not glorify Him through His praises.” (Q
17:47) I implore God’s blessings upon Muḥammad, the chosen
Messenger of God and His servant, upon his family and his
Companions, who held fast to the divine rope and covenant, and
upon their successors, who followed a just and balanced path.
This book studies the Qur’ānic oaths. It is a part of the
introductions (muqaddamahs) to my commentary on the Qur’ān
titled Niẓā

Imām Rāzī or whoever completed his exegesis after him2
also
discussed the issue in their commentary. I intend to quote both
these works during the course of discussion wherever the context
allows me. May Allāh guide me to the correct understanding of
the issue!
_______________
2. Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, Tafsīr al-Kabīr, 4th
ed., (Qum: Markaz al-
Nashr Maktab al-I‘lām al-Islāmī, n.d.).
It is believed that Imām Rāzi could not complete his commentary.
The task was accomplished after his death probably by Qāḍī Shihāb al-
Dīn b. Khalīl al-Khawlī al-Dimashqī (d. 639 AH) or Shaykh Najm al-
Dīn Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Qamūlī (d. 777 AH).

Section: 2
Three Questions on the Qur’ānic Oaths
Since this discussion primarily targets clarification of certain
questions and objections against the Qur’ānic oaths, I will start
with a mention of them. It needs to be appreciated that there are
different kinds of objections leveled on the Qur’ānic oaths. They

These are the objections leveled on the Qur’ānic oaths. I will
first mention the response by Imām Rāzī and other earlier
authorities to these objections. I shall then comment on their
responses. I shall try to explain their shortcomings so that the
reader stands guarded against sticking to obviously weak
stances. For relying on weak and untenable stance greatly
damages the true position on the religious issues. Besides, in the
matter of the religion, such weak standings are vulnerable to the
attacks of the opponents. By explaining the weakness of the view
of the earlier authorities, I do not mean to disparage their
contribution. I only intend to bring the reality of the matter to
light. I ask God to reward these scholars for their efforts towards
defending what they believed to be true. I beseech God to accept
me among the defenders of the truth.
_______________

Section: 3
Imām Rāzī’s Viewpoint
Imām Rāzī refers to the second of the above mentioned
questions while explaining Sūrah al-Ṣāffāt (Q. 37) and responds
to it in the following way:
This question requires a multifaceted answer. First, God has,
through conclusive arguments, established tawḥīd (unicity of
God), the Afterlife, and the Retribution in other sūrahs. These
fundamental beliefs have, therefore, already been established.
The arguments proving them are still fresh in the minds of the
readers. It is, therefore, sufficient to merely mention these
beliefs with the stress supplied by the oaths. It should be
appreciated that the Qur’ān was revealed in the language of
the Arabs. Affirming claims and assertions through an oath
was a common Arab custom.3
Imām Rāzī refers to the fact that the Qur’ān was revealed in the
language of the Arabs. He states that swearing was a convention
in that society. He refers to these facts in order to respond to the
first question mentioned above.
I believe what he means to say is that since the oath follows
conclusive arguments and builds on them, the claims made in the
verses rely primarily on the arguments furnished earlier and not
on these oaths which are employed merely for reaffirmation as
was customary to the Arabs. I find this position in clear
contradiction to the Qur’ān. We know that the Qur’ānic oaths are
found more in the earlier sūrahs than in the later revelations
which came after the arguments for these beliefs were fully
supplemented.
The second aspect of his explanation follows:
3. Rāzi, Tafsīr al-Kabīr, 26: 118.

First the Almighty swore by these things in order to prove the
statement: “Your God is one.” (Q 37:4) Soon afterwards, He
mentioned something which functions as a conclusive
argument for the unicity of God. He says: “Lord of the
heavens and the earth, and what lies between them, and the
Lord of the east.” (Q 37:5) This argument has been put
plainly elsewhere in the following words: “If there were
therein gods beside Allah, then, verily both would have been
disordered.” (Q 21:22) The harmonious arrangement of the
heavens and the earth bears witness to that God is one. Thus,
the complement of oath, “indeed your Lord is one” (Q 37:4),
has been followed by, “Lord of the heavens and the earth, and
whatever lies between them, Lord of the east.” (Q 37:5) The
whole can thus be paraphrased as follows: “We have already
made it clear that the arrangement of this universe points to
the unicity of its God. So ponder over this fact so that you
may obtain the knowledge of tawḥīd.

that the view of the opponents was so absurd that it could be
negated by a statement almost devoid of any argument.
While discussing the wisdom behind the use of oath, under the
commentary on the opening verses of Sūrah al-Dhāriyāt (Q. 51),
àÐpUpPpçP1 Àp€æ€0`PPààð4çïÌàÞÀÂSP!D&ÐPÀD`Ð€00…t (Q. 51),

oaths with some other assertions. Rāzī has gone too far here. He
could have maintained that sometimes mere argument does not
help because the opponents fail to understand the arguments and
can complain that the contender is using captivating eloquence

untrue oaths for they feared the consequences of such an act.
They believed that an honorable man cannot take an untrue oath.
When someone lent emphasis to his statement by the help of an
oath, the Arabs hearkened to him. This would have elevated his
view to a kind of response to the first and the second question,
albeit a weak one. What he said later, indeed, has made the
whole statement meaningless.
Now I turn to the third part of Rāzī’s response to the questions.
He writes:
Third, all the oaths the Almighty has taken, are arguments
formulated in this form. It can be compared to a statement by
a donee to his benefactor wherein the former swears saying:
“By all the bounties and favors you have bestowed upon me I
am grateful.” The continuous bounties the oath-swearer has
been receiving are a constant cause for the perpetual gratitude
he shows. Such a statement follows the design of an oath.
Similarly, all of these things R0.h., things by which the oaths
have been taken in the beginning of Sūrah al-Dhāriyāt RQ. 51)
evidence God’s power to resurrect. Why this claim has been
presented in the form of an oath? Our response to this
question follows. When a man prefaces his saying by an oath,
the audience realizes that he intends to say something serious
and solemn; this makes them hearken to him. The Almighty
has, therefore, started the sūrah with an oath and has
expressed the arguments in the form of an oath.9
This sufficiently explains away the second objection. However,
it is upon the upholder of this view to explain the nature of the
argument for the assertions found in the objects by which the
oath is being taken. The argumentative nature of the Qur’ānic
oaths, though obvious in some instances, requires a great
deliberation in most cases. This is probably why Rāzī has relied
on this explanation only in Sūrah al-Dhāriyāt RQ. 51) and in
some other instance. In most other cases, he has explained them
in two ways:
First, wherever possible he rejects the fact that an oath has been
taken in the first place. This he does only to escape the questions
on the use of oaths. He adopted this approach while explaining
9. Ibid., 194.

the word lā (no, never) occurring in the first verse of Sūrah al-
Qiyāmah (Q. 75) of the Qur’ān. He says:
The second possibility is that the particle lā negates what
follows it. In other words, it has been said: “I do not swear by
a particular day and the soul (nafs). Contrarily, I ask you
without taking an oath. Do you think that We will not be able
to collect your bones once they will be decayed by death? If
so then know that we are very able to accomplish that.” This
is the view of Abū Muslim and is the soundest.10
This interpretation cannot be accepted by an expert of the
language of the Arabs. If the Almighty intended what Imām Rāzī
believes, then what could be said, at best, is that the statement
absolutely negates taking an oath by the unparticular things like
reproaching self (nafs)

Then he sets upon explaining usefulness of the fig and the olive
assuming that the sūrah refers to particular fruits. Alternatively,
he takes them to be referring to two mosques or holy cities and
explains their glory. One can see that adhering to these answers,

Section: 4
Ibn Qayyim’s Viewpoint
‘Allāmah Ibn Qayyim does not introduce the objections on the
use of oaths by the Qur’ān before explaining them. He positively
explains the oaths of the Qur’ān. While doing so he points
towards facts which remove the germs of confusion and explain
away objections on the Qur’ānic oaths. His response, I believe, is
relatively strong. However, he too, like Rāzī, fails to follow a
single explanation and oscillates between two parallel
approaches. While commenting on the sūrahs which contain any
particular oath he jumps from one view to another.
What follows is a summary of his response along with my
comments on it.
It is important to appreciate that Ibn Qayyim adopts inductive
approach. He starts with mentioning that oaths are basically
taken only by God, His attributes and His signs. He writes:
He, the glorious one, swears by certain things to establish
some points. He usually swears either by His own name,
which has peculiar attributes, or by His signs. Thus, by
swearing by some of His creatures He has taught us these
things are His great signs.14
After presenting some examples he continues:
It needs to be appreciated that the Almighty swears to
establish fundamental beliefs which men must acknowledge.
He swears to affirm that God is one (tawḥīd); that the Qur’ān
is true; that the Prophet (sws) is truthful; that final retribution
is sure to come; that warnings in this regard are not empty
threats. Sometimes He swears to affirm the status of men.15
14. Ibn Qayyim, Al-Tibyān fī Aqsām al-Qur’ān, 3.
15. Ibid., 4.

According to Ibn Qayyim, the Qur’ānic oaths are limited to
three matters of great religious import. These three issues then
converge into a single one: the attributes of God, as we shall
soon see. After this introduction, he does not feel a need to
investigate the jawāb al-qasam (complement of oath) for he has
already identified the thing sworn of, i.e. belief in unicity of
God, prophethood, and the Last Day. The oaths themselves
prove these beliefs. While treating the oaths in the beginning of
the Sūrah al-‘ diyāt (Q. 100) and Sūrah al-‘Aṣr (Q. 103) he
writes:
The complement of the oath has been left unstated because
what is being affirmed by the oaths is already understood (i.e.
tawḥīd, Prophethood, and the Last Judgment). Each among
these three entails the others (they are mutalāzimah). Thus
when the veracity of the Messenger is established, the Qur’ān
and the Last Judgment stand proven. When it is established
that the Qur’ān is true, the Messenger’s claim to be a divine
Prophet and all the claims of the Book, including the power
of God (to resurrect), are ratified. Therefore, the complement
of oath is sometimes left unstated. It is taken for granted. In
this case, the intention of the author is not to mention what is
sworn of. Rather the only purpose of swearing the oath is to
produce ta‘ẓīm (glorification, exaltation) of the muqsam bihī
and to teach that it is a thing by which one may swear an
oath.16
These things, according to him, lead to His sublime attributes.
This is clear from his treatment of the oaths occurring in the start
of Sūrah al-Burūj (Q. 85) where he says: “All these things are
signs of His power which evidence His unicity.”17
Following this, he says:
The best explanation is that this oath does not need any
complement because in this case the only intention is to
highlight the muqsam bihī and to make it clear that it is
16. Ibid., 7-8.
17. Ibid., 56.

among the great signs of God.18
Similarly while dealing with the oaths occurring in the
beginning of Sūrah al-Ṭalāq (Q. 65) he writes:
The Almighty has sworn by the heavens and the shining stars,
each of which is one of the signs that affirm His unicity.19
Then while treating the oaths occurring in the middle of the
same Sūrah he says:
God has sworn by the heavens which showers rains and by
the earth which in turn produces vegetations. All these things
are the signs of God that prove His providence.20
He has repeated the same thing while treating the oaths
occurring in the end of Sūrah al-Inshiqāq (Q. 84). He writes:
These (i.e. twilight, night and moon) and other similar things
constitute signs which evidence God’s providence. They call
us to appreciate His perfect attributes. 21
While dealing with the complement of these oaths, he says:
It is possible that the complement of this oath is left unstated.22
This oath does not require a complement for, according to him,
that is already understood in defined form.
The above discussion helps us see the difference between the
view of Rāzī, who offers different contradictory responses, and
that of Ibn Qayyim, who adopts a single method to explain all
the Qur’ānic oaths. The method of Ibn Qayyim, I believe, is
relatively sounder.
Now I wish to explain the basic function behind Ibn Qayyim’s
method. He draws on two bases.
First, God Almighty has sworn by Himself and also by His
18. Ibid., 57.
19. Ibid., 63.
20. Ibid., 67.
21. Ibid., 69.
22. Ibid., 70.

signs. Swearing by created things is nothing but another form of
swearing by God. For these things are His creatures. They are
signs of His providence.
He has thus intended to explain away the third objection
mentioned above which rests on the claim that swearing an oath

as I have mentioned earlier.
Despite the weakness of his response and his occasional
remarks that the oaths have been brought in order to glorify the
muqsam bihī, he has been right and proficient or at least, one can
say, he has been proficient in more than one place during the
entire discussion.
_______________

Section: 5
Plan of the Present Book
An exposure to the views of the earlier authorities on the
Qur’ānic oaths must have, I believe, led you to learn that the best
view they held in this regard is that the oaths evidence certain
theses. However, the problem that remained hidden to these
scholars and the bottleneck they could not escape from is their
adherence to the belief that the oaths decidedly consist of
glorification of the muqsam bihī. This is the error which proved
to be a great hindrance in the proper understanding of the
Qur’ānic oaths. It is this belief that is the headspring of all the
objections (shubhāt). I will, therefore, start with negating this
belief so that it becomes clear that the oaths have nothing to do
with glorification of the muqsam bihī, though some of the
muqsam bihīs may be glorified things.
I shall then explain that when the Qur’ān swears an oath by the
created things it presents the things sworn by (muqsam bihīs) as
evidences for the sworn statements (muqsam ‘alayhis). Such
evidentiary oaths form a category which is distinct from oaths of
glorification (al-aqsām al-ta‘ẓīmiyyah). The Qur’ānic oaths, in
my view, are not sworn by attributes of God, as held by Ibn
Qayyim.
Then I shall turn to explain in what instances an oath may be
taken and at what others, it is better avoided. This will help us
understand that it is not right to say that swearing an oath is
absolutely prohibited.
Discussions in this book will revolve around these three points.
Since this issue calls for detailed and exhaustive treatment, at
points, I have been forced to discuss the history of oath and its
social function, both in the past and present, and its various
forms. I will also explain the meaning of the particles of oath,
oath formulas, their basic meaning and implications, including
respect (ikrām), sanctification (taqdīs) and argumentation

(istidlāl); all these three are distinct from glorification.
I will explain the oaths in the light of clear proofs from the
Qur’ānic verses and explain why this explanation has remained
hidden so that the great scholars of the past are excused. Then

Section: 6
History, Form, Meaning and Use of Oath
Sometimes one needs to stress a statement or to emphasize
promises in order to convince his audience. This is especially
demanding in serious interpersonal, national, international and
collective matters. When two persons, two nations, or a ruler and
his subjects contract a treaty they consider it of utmost
importance to assert that they ar

Romans and the Indians. This is further corroborated by the fact
that in Hebrew also the word yamīn is used to connote an oath.
Psalms 144:8 reads:
Those whose mouths utter evil things and their oaths are false
oaths.
The original Hebrew words are: )‫ﺷﺎﻗﺮ‬ ‫ﳝﲔ‬ ‫ﻭﳝﻴﻨﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺳﻮﺀ‬ ‫ﺩﺑﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺃﺷﺮ‬( I
wonder why the English translators failed to understand this
meaning and translated the verse as follows: “Their right hand is
the false right hand.”24
They failed to appreciate that the word yamīn, in this context,
connotes oath and translated it literally. This is an outrageously
erroneous interpretation and proves that these translators of the
Bible did not try enough to understand Hebrew, the original
language of the Scripture. What is astonishing is that they did not
mend this clear mistake in their recent efforts to improve the
earlier translations.

that my hands have stuck to it. Ṭarafah b. al-‘Abd says:
When the nation hastens to take up arms, you shall find
me secure while my hands have gripped the handle of the
sword (ballat biqā’mihī).25
Sometimes they took scent and divided it among them and
rubbed it on their hands. Thus they would depart while scented.
Scent leaves more lasting traces than water. It is in fact more
noticeable. This is why it has been called “a conspicuous thing”
(‘urf) and “a diffusing one” (nashr). An example of this method
of affirming contracts, in the history of the Arabs, is the famous
relic of Manshim which goes as follows. Some people swore that
they would fight their enemies jointly. They wanted a memorial
of their covenant. They decided to use scent which they bought
from a perfumer called Manshim. This

Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people.
And they said: “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be
obedient.” And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the
people, and said: “This is the blood of the covenant which the
Lord has made with you, according to all these words.”
(Exodus 24:4-12)
We see that they vowed to their Lord by sprinkling the blood
on themselves. They sprinkled the blood on the altar on behalf of
their Lord. Thus they became the allies of their Lord. Such
examples abound in the Torah. We find in Zechariah:
Because of the blood of your covenant, I set your prisoners
free. (Zechariah 9:11)
Yet another method adopted in contractual obligations was that a
party would bind a chord with that of their partners. They would
then be considered allies. The word rope has acquired the meaning
of a contract of guarantee and companionship from this very
custom. The Qur’ān says:
Under a covenant (ḥabl) with God and a covenant (ḥabl) with
men. (Q 3:112)
Imru’ al-Qays says:
I am going to join my chord (ḥablī) with that of yours. I will
attach the shaft of my arrow with that of yours.27
Ḥatī’ah hints towards the origin of this practice. He says:
They are a nation whose neighbor spends night in peace, once
he ties his tent ropes (aṭnāb plural of ṭunub) with theirs.28
These are some of the ways adopted by the partners to stress
their commitment to honor the contracts they made. According
to another custom, people prohibited for themselves their
cherished things and abided by their promise. They would call
27. Imru’ al-Qays, Dīwān, (Berut: Shirkah Dār al-Arqam, n.d.), 130.
28. Ḥaṭī’ah, Jarwal b. Aws, Dīwān, (Beirut: Shirkah Dār al-Arqam,
n.d.), 40.

such a vow as nadhar. An example of this kind of oaths is the
vow committed by Muhalhil, brother of Kulayb. He vowed not
to drink wine nor to perfume his body nor to wash his hair until
he avenged the wrong done to his brother. This is a famous
legend. Similai-QaT31s, aft(hefulfilliron t)5.5Thi( v, saT31s:4( )]Tf10.02

Similarly Ashtar al-Nakh‘ī says:
I may hoard wealth (instead of showing generosity), fail to
perform great works and treat my guests badly if I failed to
make a raid on Ibn Ḥarab causing great casualties every
day.33
This kind of self-imprecatory oath-formulas shares many traits
of religiously accented oaths. The religious aspect of such oaths
is portrayed by the fact that, in this case too, the oath-taker fears
God and His curse. He believes that failing to accomplish his
undertaking, once calling God as a witness to his commitments,
would earn him wrath of God.
Another form of such vows is to refrain from something
without clarifying the time or conditions of revoking it. Such
oaths are called ’aliyyah. The Qur’ā

any hungry petitioner un-entertained.36
There are ample examples of this usage of the word in the
classical Arabic literature. The words ālaytu and aqsamtu are
used interchangeably. Sometimes lām tākīd (preposition “l” used
for stress) is conjugated with such expressions. The Qur’ān
employs this technique. The Almighty says:
And if they do not desist from what they say, a grievous
punishment shall surely befall (layamassanna) those of them
that disbelieve. (Q 5:73)
At another occasion the Almighty says:
And surely God will help (layanṣuranna) those who help
Him. (Q 22:40)
Labīd says:
I do realize that I have to taste death most surely
(lata’tiyanna). For arrows of death do not miss the mark.37
While commenting on this verse Sībwayh says: “As if he says:
‘By God, death will come.’”38
Sībwayh has indeed clarified his
understanding of the verse by giving an example. He actually
wants to say that the poet meant to swear. That is why we see
that while discussing L, a particle of oath (lām of qasam), he has
explained his view saying: “Similarly in the words ‘laman
tabi‘aka minhum la’amla’anna’ (Whoever among them followed
you I will surely fill ….), the particle lām lends the meaning of
swearing to the expression. God knows best.”39
Sībwayh does not mean that God has taken a proper oath by a
certain muqsam bihī. Rather, he says that the word la’amla’anna
itself implies an oath. For the purpose of an oath is merely to
36. ‘Abdul Qādir b. ‘Umar al-Baghdādī, Khazānah al-Adab wa Lubbi
Lubābi Lisāni al-‘Arab, 1st
ed., vol. 10 (Beirut: Dār al-Nashr, Dār al-
Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1998), 84.
37. Ibid., 160.
38. Sībwayh, ‘Amr b. Uthmān b. Qambar, al-Kitāb, 1st
ed., vol. 3
(Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1999), 125.
39. Ibid., 124.

stress a point. It is not necessary to assume the muqsam bihī as
left unexpressed at every instance.
This means that all such uses of lām signify an oath in this
sense. Thus, if lām-i qasam follows a word that produces the
meaning of certainty and determination the latter works as an
oath. The above quoted verse ascribed to Labīd is an example.
There are examples of this style in the Qur’ān as well:
Then it occurred to them, even after they had seen the signs,
that they should imprison him (layasjununnahū) till a certain
time. (Q 12:35)
Another example follows:
God said: “The truth is, and the truth alone I speak, that I will
certainly fill (la’amla’anna) Hell.” (Q 38:84)
One may not think that, in these examples, the muqsam bihī is
necessarily suppressed. It does not suit this occasion as is
obvious from the context.
All this detail regarding forms of oaths sufficiently proves that
muqsam bihī is not always a necessary part of the oaths. We may
not take it as suppressed if it is not mentioned in a given case.
Oaths merely stress a statement or express determination to a
commitment or a vow not to do something.
_______________

Section: 7
Object is not Essential to Oath
That the muqsam bihī is not essential to oath will be established
through an analysis of oath formulas. Taking an oath by God or
by His sha‘ā’ir40
is not a plain human activity indispensible for

lacks ability to accomplish something. Then this term started to
be used for abstaining from something. Abstaining from sexual
intercourse with wives, by way of an oath, is an example. From
here it acquired the extended meaning of sticking to a decision
regarding doing or avoiding something. However, most often it
is used for abstaining from things which are supposed to be
harmful. This makes it identical to nadhar. Ibn Ziyābah al-
Taymī says:
I have sworn (’ālaytu) not to bury bodies of those among you
who have been killed. So fumigate the victim and his armor.41
The word (’aliyyah) was later on used interchangeably with
qasam (Arabic for oath), as has been discussed in the previous
section.
Qasam originally meant breaking off and cutting something
apart (qaṭ

famous elegiac verse, Junūb says:
I swear O ‘Amr (fa’aqsamtu), had they (the cheetahs) awoken
you, they would have stirred an irremediable wrath in you.43
Rīṭah al-Salamiyyah says:
I swore (fa’aqsamtu) that I would never stop shedding tears;
they must continually stream my eyes.44
Kharnaq, sister of Ṭarafah, says:
Behold! I have sworn (’aqsamtu) not to mourn the death of
anyone including my friends after Bishr.45
It has been said in the Qur’ān:
Are they the ones about whom you swore (’aqsamtum) that
they would not have a share in God’s mercy? (Q 7:49)
He swore (qāsamahumā) to both of them, committing to them
that he was their well wisher. Thus he misled them
treacherously. (Q 7:21-2)
If someone claims that muqsam bihī is to be taken for granted
where omitted and that in such cases the referent is always God
Almighty, I would explain to him that:
If you maintain that it is possible in some cases that the omitted
muqsam bihī is to be identified as God, then I have no objection.
However, I believe that it cannot be taken for granted in all
43. ‘Abdul Qādir, Khazānah al-Adab, 10: 409.
44. I did not find a copy of th0.00071 Tw[(06(dioI )-6(di855b5i‘8q(8 43.2 307.

cases. The muqsam bihī is not necessarily taken to be suppressed
if left unstated. Detailed arguments for this view have already
been presented. We know that an oath is taken by God as well as
other entities. Sometimes oaths even come without a muqsam
bihī. In that case, however, it implies only stress and mere
determination.
Ḥalaf means to cut apart and to be sharp. It is, therefore,
similar to the word qasam. A sharp knife is referred to as sinān
ḥalīf. A fluent tongue is lisān ḥalīf. According to Azharī, this
word has been derived from ḥalf (esparto), a plant with sharp
thorny leaves. There statement, “ḥalafa ‘alā ’amrin” (He has
sworn to do something) is synonymous to “qaṭa‘a bihī” (He
resolved to do that). This is the root of the term ḥalaf, expressive
of oath. Just like qasam, this word came to be used to express
resoluteness and decisiveness in a stance. That is why it does not
require a muqsam bihī. When two Arabs formalize clientage
between them, they are instantly considered as such irrespective
of the method adopted in the contract. I have mentioned different
customary procedures of such a contract where the parties do not
swear by anything.
The above discussions in this section along with the earlier
ones evidently prove that basically the muqsam bihī is not
necessary part of oath in the first place. Thus there remains no
question of any excellence or glorification of the muqsam bihī.
In order to prove this thesis, I have, so far, discussed common
oath-words. Customary use of these words in the oath formulas
has obscured their original meanings. This called for a relatively
detailed analysis. There are, however, other words which denote
an oath and whose original meanings are still apparent. A critical
analysis of such oaths will clearly prove that an oath does not
involve glorification of the muqsam bihī. This takes us to the
next section.
_______________

Section: 8
Meaning of Oath used with the Object
Having grasped the meaning of an oath used without the
muqsam bihī, it would not be difficult for us to appreciate the
meaning of an oath which accompanies the muqsam bihī. In such
usages, the muqsam bihī is related to the oath the way a witness
meaning

for any among the parties to go back on his words. Whoever fails
to honor this covenant, he will be committing transgression.
The original purpose of such emphasis can be seen in the
following example. When a man says: “I bear witness to it”, he
makes it plain that he is sure of the fact. He has witnessed it and
has not said that on the basis of second hand report. If he is
proven wrong, then he would not find an excuse to exonerate
him. That is why the brothers of Yūsuf (sws) said:
And we have testified (shahidnā) only what we know and we
have no knowledge of the unseen. (Q 12:81)
This aspect of an oath obtains from the following verse of the
Qur’ān:
But God bears witness (yashhadu) to what He has revealed to
you, He sent it down knowingly, and the angels also bear
witness (yashhadū

Sībwayh, while discussing the particle lām of oath, says:
“Learn that there are verbs that signify oaths when followed by
another verb in the following form: aqsamū la’af‘alanna (I
swear I will do) and ashhadu la’af‘alanna (I swear that I will
do).” Thus, according to Sībwayh, the verb ashhadu implies
’uqsimu (I swear) and both can be used interchangeably.
The Qur’ān has settled the issue by clearly indicating the fact
that shahādah (bearing witness) and ishhād (testifying), by
nature, connote yamīn (oath). The Almighty says:
When the hypocrites come to you, they say: “We bear
witness (naashhadu) that you are the Messenger of God.”
And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, but God
bears witness (yashhadu) too that the hypocrites certainly are
liars. They have made their oaths (aymānahum) a shield; thus
they hinder men from the path of God. (Q 63: 1-2)
God Almighty has clearly termed their act of bearing witness
as aymān (oaths). Elsewhere God Almighty used the expression
“to bear witness” to imply taking an oath. The Almighty says:
And it shall avert the punishment from her if she swears
(tashhada) before God four oaths (shahādātin) [stating that]
what he says is indeed false. (Q 24:8)
Still at another place, it is said:
And they call upon God to witness (yushhidullāha) their true
intentions, whereas they are but [your] staunch enemies. (Q
2:204)
The above discussion evidently proves that in such oaths, the
muqsam bihī is meant to serve as a witness to the truth of what is
sworn of (muqsam ‘alayhi). I have provided close and copious
arguments which sufficiently prove this thesis. The issue will be
further elaborated upon by the help of examples in the tenth
section.
In regards to the question of glorification of the muqsam bihī, I
hold that it is not a necessary element of an oath. It is only an
additional thing that is acquired in some of the cases. We will
soon turn to this issue.

After this discussion around the essence of oath and its basic
meaning, I turn to explain the additional meanings it has
acquired such as glorification, honoring, and argumentation. I
will now take up these issues so that the reader can fully
understand all relevant matters. This will help the reader
properly ponder over the Qur’ānic oaths and reach a correct
conclusion in this regard.
_______________

Section: 9
Honorific Oath
Oaths have been used to bestow honor on or glorify 1) the
muqsam bihī, 2) the oath-taker himself or 3) the addressees. The
Arabs were characterized by truthfulness and honesty. It was a
hallmark of their nature. It was never possible for them to go
back on their words, break an oath or dic7-4(r)0.wroby(em)5(isureo

It is in this aspect of the oath that muqsam bihī has been
considered to be a glorious thing. The oath-taker can emphasize
his statement this way only through swearing by something
honorable, glorious and dear. This is, therefore, the crux of this
kind of oaths. From this kind of oaths developed expressions like
‘la‘amruka’ (by your life), which denote honor for the addressee.
The speaker intends to say: “I swear, not by my life, but by your
life which is dearer and more honorable to me than that of mine.”
This is the basis of adding the element of glorification of the
muqsam bihī. Since, at times, an oath-taker intends to honor his
addressee besides reaffirming his statement and this form of oaths
suited more to the conversational oaths, the Arabs started to use
exprThee

therefore, does not behove lowly servants of God. Jesus Christ
(sws) perhaps referred to this kind of oaths when he forbade
taking oaths in the following statement attributed to him:
Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make
one hair white or black. (Mathew 5:36)
Third, since some oaths include the aspect of calling evil upon
the oath-taker as has been explained in the sixth section, this too
should be considered an extended meaning of the oaths of
glorification, and not the original meaning of such oaths. It is as
though the oath-taker intends to say: “If I am untrue in what I
say then my life be destroyed and my honor be spoiled.”
By the foregoing discussion, I hope it has become clear that
this kind of oaths is not sworn except when the muqsam bihī is
attributed to either the speaker or the addressee. Such oaths must
also be taken through specific expressions mentioned above. In
these oaths, one swears by things known to be respected and
revered by the speaker. This explains that the Qur’ānic oaths by
dhāriyāt (that scatter dust) (Q 51:01), al-‘ādiyāt (panting ones)
(Q 100:1), khunnas (the stars that withdraw) (Q 81:15) and al-
jawār al-kunnas (stars which rush ahead and hide) (Q 81:16) fall
in a distinct category. They should not be confused with this
kind.
It needs to be appreciated that this kind of oaths is not among
the more concrete forms of swearing current in Arabian society.
These are often used, merely in order to place emphasis upon a
statement, such as in the expression aqsamtu (I swear). That is
why at times they say la-‘amrillāhi (upon God’s life) without
implying its literal meaning, except when they make such an
intention clear as has been explained with reference to the verses
of Rīṭah and Nābighah.
There are, however, other kinds of concrete oath formulas
which will be taken up in the next section.
_______________

Section: 10
Oath Sanctifying the Object
I have already explained reasons why the Arabs felt a need to
stress and solidify their statements by way of an oath. Similar
needs sometimes forced them to overstate and exaggerate their
assertions. They would then, while entering into a mutual
contract, gather at a place of worship, adding the element of
religiosity to their oaths. They intended to hold God a witness to
their commitments. They believed taking a false oath this way
would invite God’s wrath.
In early times, political order and proper rule in Arabia was
limited. Nations and tribes lived closely and were not separated by
natural boundaries like great mountains and surging seas. They
were not deterred by natural boundaries from attacking each other
except by mutual accords. Treaties, therefore, provided the
inestimable protection and were strong walls against foreign
aggression.
Then at times, different nations forged an alliance against a
common enemy and would enter into a treaty. Whenever a matter
of peace or war was felt important by the Arabs, they immediately
resorted to contracting a treaty. When Abraham (sws) left his
nation and settled in the Arabian Peninsula, Abū Malik noticed
that he was a man of power and might. The latter feared him and
gave him respect. This he did by entering into a treaty with
Abraham (sws) in a customary way in order to avoid any possible
confrontation with him. Both of them became allies through this
treaty.
History evidences the communal importance of treaties. Even
great powerful nations of the present day resort to this practice.
This explains how important the practice must have been to the
ancient nations founded on their sense of honor, aggression and
audaciousness. Nations of this day, I should say, are of the same
traits. They are even worse because they have combined elements

of force and aggression with deception and falsehood. People
often disrespect contracts and treaties. Still, however, they cling to
the treaties compelled by the needs of a civilization. People swear
by God and religious symbols in fr

perfume and touched the building of the Ka‘bah. This is why
they were called the perfumers. The Prophet (sws) and Abū Bakr
(rta) participated in this pact.48
This is the origin of the religious oaths of the Arabs. They
widened its application and remained content with only making a
mention of the Ka‘bah or the other symbols attached to the ḥajj
ritual. This is evidenced by the following examples:
Zuhayr b. Abī Sulmā says:
I swore (aqsamtu) by the House (bi al-bayt) which is
circumambulated by its builders, Quraysh and Jurham.49
At another occasion he says:
Thus our hands and your hands will come together at a place
of taking oaths (the House of God), where the blood of
offerings is poured.50
A‘shā Qays says:
By the two-layered garment of a pilgrim and by the house
built by Quṣayy and Ibn Jurham alone, I …….51
48. In his biography of the Prophet (sws), Ibn Hishām has recorded the
following narrative regarding the oath of the muṭayyibīn. After the death
of Quṣayy b. Kilāb, two branches of his progeny, Banū ‘Abd Munāf and
Banū ‘Abd al-Dār differed over the management of hijābah (custody of
the Ka‘bah), liwā’

The same poet says in another verse ascribed to him:
For him, I swore (ḥalaftu) by the she-camels, which go
dancing towards Minā (al-rāqiṣat) at the time the packs of the
pilgrims throng towards it.52
Ḥārith b. ‘Ibād says:
Never, by Lord of the she camels which dance towards (wa
rabbi al-rāqiṣāti) Minā. Never, I swear by the Lord who
prohibits and allows things (wa rabbi al-ḥilli wa al-iḥrāmi).53
Nābighah al-Dhubyānī says:
No, by the one whose House I circumambulated, and by the
blood poured on the stone-altars. By the one who shelters
birds that remained undisturbed by caravans which travel

The following verses evidence the custom of swearing by the
stone alters:
Muhalhil says:
Never, by the beautifully carved ancient stone-altars which
are customarily worshipped.57
Ṭarafah says:
I swore beside the stone-altars that I am going to perish in an
encounter that will neither be easy nor kind.58
Mutalammis says:
Have you deserted me for fear of my defamatory poetry? By
Lāt and by the stone-altars you will never escape it.59
Rashīd b. Ramiḍ al-‘Anazī says:
I swore by the blood poured around ‘Awḍ and by the stone
altars erected near Sa‘īr.60
Stone-altars are rarel2 36.10.r4e

against you, making sure not to leave any evil untried.61
Akhṭal, who openly and proudly speaks of his faith in
Christianity, says:
I swear by the one to whom the sacrificial animals are led and

‘Āriq al-Ṭā’ī says:
I swore by the stations at Minā, and by the places where lice
is pestled (i.e. heads are shaved) that I would exert full
efforts.66
This practice of swearing by the Ka‘bah or other ritualistic
things related to ḥajj current in the Jāhilī period remained extant
even after the advent of Islam. Farazrduq says:
Do you not know that I have promised to my Lord, while
standing between the gate [of the Ka‘bah] and Muqām, that I
would never abuse a Muslim, nor would I ever utter falsity?67
Ḥaṭī’ah says:
By the she-camels which dance towards Minā f 0 4 f1d4?—

When the Arabs, in their oaths, mentioned the Ka‘bah and
offerings and referred to touching it, they intended to evidence a
claim. This way they also pointed towards the method of
swearing an oath. Merely swearing by God does not produce the
desired result. Therefore, they tried to point towards the origin
and essence of the oath and depict the form of taking an oath.
This they did in order to make it an effective communicative
technique.
I have held that the Arabs employed oaths to bring evidence to
a fact. This I base on their history and poetry. This view can be
further corroborated by the fact that they often held God a
witness to their statements. They would thus say: “God is
witness,” “God knows” or any other similar thing. The following
verse of ‘Amr b. Ma‘dīkarib is a case in point:
God knows (ya‘lamu) I did not cease to fight them till the
time their [dead bodies] were piled up to my horse, covered

responded: “By God (yamīn allāhi), I am not going to do that.
I have found you enchanted. Your vows (yamīnuka) are
untrue.”71
Another clear example is found in the Prophet’s (sws) last ḥajj
sermon. After explaining the fundamentals of Islam, he asked the
audience: “Have I communicated to you? (They all said: “Yes,
you have.”) O God, bear witness.” (Bukhārī, No: 1654) Thus, he
held Almighty God a witness to their statement.
Still another example is what the Prophet (sws) said to Ibn al-
Latībah. The Prophet (sws) had appointed Ibn al-Latībah as a tax
collector. He accepted personal gifts from the people. When the
Prophet (sws) came to know of this, he was enraged. He
reminded Ibn al-Latībah his responsibilities and then, while
raising his hands to the heavens, said: “O God, I have
communicated [w.00t60.00eTJ (

taken to evidence something. The meaning of glorification has
been mingled with the original meaning only because of the
consideration of the muqsam bihī, and not because of the mere
act of bringing evidence by oaths: the most manifest meaning of
swearing an oath.
This fact is borne out by anotani-7.2(ration oArabs)-3.4( )]T33330.65

Section: 11
Argumentative Oath
We have learnt that the Arabs in their oaths bore witness and
called God’s witness to what they intended to asseverate. Among
oaths brought to witness some claims, the oath taken by the
name of God Almighty best communicates the intention of the
oath-taker. That is why swearing by God abounds in the
conversations as well as the literature of the Arabs. Those
lacking a proper understanding of the Arabic styles of expression
and discipline of balāghah assume that originally only God
could be held witness in oaths because of the glory He possesses.
However, a thorough analysis of the Arabic literature reveals
that, besides other things, they even swore by things they neither
worshipped nor respected. They only intended to evidence a fact
by making the muqsam bihī a witness for the muqsam ‘alayhi.
Even purely religious oaths were characterized by this aspect of
evidencing a fact, as will be established in section 15. For now,
we only intend to present the examples of the argumentative
oaths so that the true signification of such oaths is brought to
light. Abū al-‘Aryān al-Ṭā’ī, while eulogizing Ḥātim, says:
People know and the cooking pots and the shining sharp
edges of knives, which flow continuously, bear witness that
you do not take more time to entertain a night visitor than is
taken in unsheathing the sword (to slaughter an animal).73
Al-Rā‘ī says:
Indeed, the heavens, the wind, the earth, the days, and the
city, all bear witness. I made Banū Badar taste the
consequences of their recalcitrance in the combat of Hibā’, an
unparalleled battle.74
73. I have no access to the source of this couplet too.
74. al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn, 1: 82.

Nābighah al-Dhubyānī says:
The horses bear witness that, at the time of intense spearing,
we proved a scourge of punishment for some and a blessing
for others.75
‘Antarah says:
Horses and the horsemen bear witness to that I rent their force
asunder through a decisive spearing.76
Notice the use of cooking-pots, knives, heavens, winds, the
earth, days, cities, horses and horsemen as proofs to the
statements of the oath-takers. They mean to say: “Ask these
things. If they could speak, they would bear witness to what we
state.”
This style of evidencing a fact by specific things has been
employed in the following statement of al-Faḍal b. ‘Īsā b. Abān
in one of his sermons:
Ask the earth: “Who has engraved your streams, planted your
trees and harvested your fruits?” If it does not speak by
tongue its very state will testify.77
I believe the Book of Job echoes this in the following part of
the sermon.
Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; and the birds of the
air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will
teach you; and the fish of the sea will explain to you. Who
among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has
done this, in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and
the breath of all mankind? (Job 12: 7-10)
Similarly it has been said in Deuteronomy:
75. Nābighah, Dīwān, 106.
76. ‘Antarah b. Shaddād, Dīwān, 2nd
ed., (Beirut: Al-Maktab al-
Islāmī, 1983), 134.
77. al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn, 1: 81.

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I
have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing;
therefore, choose life, that both you and your descendants
may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
By this testimony, the Prophet Moses (sws) intends to say:
“This covenant between you and me is not a secret. Rather we
formalize it openly making it known to all. Dishonoring it would
earn you everlasting disgrace. You will then continuously face
curse and punishment from the heavens above and the earth
below.”
The Prophet Moses (sws) has thus presented heavens and earth
to exemplify perpetual disgrace which must follow a breaking of
the pact. It is as if he appointed two witnesses over them, which
may not abandon them even for a moment, and appointed two
signs, which may always remind them of the pact.
What fully uncovers the true nature of the argumentative oaths,
in which the state of some inanimate thing is made to bear
witness over a claim, is the fact that just as the oath-takers make
things to bear witness over a fact using the words yashhadu (he
bears witness), ya‘lamu (he knows) and similar expressions, they
also employ words which connote swearing and even such words
and particles as were coined to express an oath including wāw of
qasam or the la‘amrī (upon my life) and the like.
For the benefit of those who have not been convinced by the
aforementioned examples, we refer to examples where oaths
have been sworn by inanimate objects which can only speak by
their state. ‘Urwah b. Murrah al-Hudhalī says:
And Abū Amāmah said: O Bakr, help! I said: “By the
Markhah tree (wa markhatin), what an inflated claim!”
The poet satirizes Abū Amāmah’s call to the tribe of Bakr for
help. He means to say: “This is an awfully inflated claim. What
an insignificant people to rely on!” He swore by an unmeaning
tree that cannot even shelter a man. He depicted the tree as
proverbial for weakness and inability to provide shelter. This
meaning is also clear in the following verse ascribed to Abū
Jundub al-Hudhalī:
I am a man who tucks up loincloth to the middle of his calf

(i.e. I instantly get ready for the task) when called for help by
a neighbor. You should not take my neighbor as a man
seeking shelter under a Markhah tree. Nor should you
mistake him as a mild grass growing in a low land.78

By swearing by the lamenting women, the poet intends to point
to their apparent condition which evidences the havoc created by
the event. It reveals how badly the relatives of the murdered man
have been affected. This kind of oaths is not very common
because of the delicacy involved in it and due to the currency of
other forms of oaths signifying the same meaning. However, it
has been a well established form of taking an oath containing
multifaceted rhetorical beauty (balaghah). This issue will be
discussed in detail in the seventeenth section.
We, on the basis of very sound arguments, maintain that this
form of oath taking has been applied both by the Arabs and the
non-Arabs. It would not be inappropriate if we referred to the
Greek literature to support our viewpoint.
_______________

Section: 12
Argumentative Oath in Demosthenes
Greeks were an independent nation in the beginning of their
history. Unacquainted with coercion, they lived under a
democratic system till the reign of King Philip, the father of
Alexander the Great. Philip established his personal rule. He had
to face the pro-democratic powers which offered him very fierce
opposition. Many bloody battles between both the parties
ensued. The greatest Greek orator Demosthenes headed the
opposition. When the democratic powers were defeated by King
Philip, Demosthenes made a historical speech to the Athenians in
order to dress their feelings and to praise their bravery and love
for freedom. In this speech, he defended his views and negated
those of his opponent Æschines, who sided with the king. We
reproduce relevant parts of his speech in the following:
No, my countrymen, it cannot be that you have acted wrong
in encountering danger bravely for the liberty and the safety
of all Greece. Your forefathers had already left a model for
you to emulate. They were certainly not on the wrong; those
of your forefathers who fought at Marathon, those who
offered their lives at Salamis, those who bravely fought at
Plaataea. Never indeed. By the generous souls of ancient
times who endangered their lives in the field of Marathon! By
those who encountered the fleets at Salamis! By those who
fought at Artemisium! By those courageous warriors who
stood arrayed at Plataea! O Æschines, the sons of Athens did
not pay homage only to those who prevailed, not only those
who were victorious. They showed respect to all of them by
paying honor to their dead bodies democratically.82
82. Demosthenes, Public Orations of Demosthenes, (London: Jones
and Company, 1828), 177.

The public did not welcome their victory and did not show
respect to it. Rather they honored their bravery, courage and love
for liberty. Same is your case. If you have not carried the day
this time do not fret over it. It is glorious enough that you risked
your lives for the sake of liberty and freedom of the country.
Let us ponder over the oaths of Demosthenes. He depicts their
forefathers and their courage and valiance for his audience in
order to fill their hearts with pride and passion. He has
successfully invoked their valiant and brave deeds as evidence of
the failed yet rightful and brave cause of his audience. Such true
depiction has only been made possible by couching the words in
the form of oaths that serve the purpose of emphasizing the
statement.
This form of oaths is known for its cogence. It has been
considered an excellent literary device by the literary experts of
ancient times as well as those of later periods. However, I
believe that the later Greek scholars could not appreciate the
essenc coun senGr the o1.9.9( o)-3and [(y7(k scho. Wr t. S(eever, )-eve

Section: 13
Argumentative Oath in Eupolis
During the democratic period, the Greeks would customarily
crown the valiant accomplishment of an extraordinarily brave
warrior meeting the expectations of the nation. They would thus
honor brave men and admit their privilege. The poet Eupolis was
one who earned such an honor by showing bravery in the battle

are correct. Both of them have used oaths by way of evidence
and examples. They did not intend in their oaths the glorification
of the muqsam bihī. If the muqsam bihī itself contain any kind of
glory, it is a mere coincidence and not the intention of the oath-
taker to establish it. An oath in and of itself does not speak of
glorification of the muqsam bihī. On the contrary, sometimes it
implies the negation of glory in the muqsam bihī. ‘Urwah b.
Murrah, whose verse we have already mentioned in the eleventh
chapter, takes an oath by the Markhah tree in order to exemplify
weakness and insignificance.
_______________

Section: 14
Evidentiary Significations of Argumentative Oath
We have been acquainted with argumentative oaths in prose and
poetry from both the Arabic and the Non-Arabic sources. We have
also learnt that employing an oath to reinforce a statement is a
certain style of lending eloquence to the discourse. Now I wish to
explain the evidential significations of the examples of oaths
mentioned in the previous chapters. This will help us fully
understand the argumentative character of oaths. A thorough
discussion in this regard is necessary because this issue is of
central importance to this book. We will also find some further
examples of this kind of oaths in the discussion around the
rhetorical aspects of the oaths.
While taking oaths of evidence, the Arabs, at times, clarify the
nature of the muqsam ‘alayhi, such as in the following verse of
al-Rā‘ī:
Indeed, the heavens, the winds, the earth, the days and the
city all bear witness (tashhadu) to that ….
The poet says that what he swears of is so evident and well
established that everything bears witness to it. Everything on the
horizons of the skies and the corners of the earth proves it. Every
city knows it. It has been preserved on the pages of history. The
strength of stress on the assertion is achieved by highlighting the
fact that even inanimate things bear witness to it let alone men
endowed with the faculties of hearing, vision and speech.
This is apparently a bit of exaggeration. Yet it is based on truth.
It relies on the general knowledge of the fact. It is similar to the
oath taken by Moses (sws), as referred to earlier, where he swore
by the heavens and the earth.
Sometimes oath-takers mean to present something as an
example by way of comparison in order to strengthen a claim.
The oath of ‘Urwah b. Murrah referred to above evidences this

fact. He has likened the tribe of Banū Bakr, whom Abū Amāmah
called for help, to the Markhah tree. This is merely an empty
claim. However, when such a claim is just intricately hinted at, it
is often well received by the audience, just as is the case with

Section: 15
Evidence from the Qur’ān
It has been sufficiently proved that the basic purpose of an oath
is to ratify a statement. It has also been established that
gloriousness of the muqsam bihī is not a necessary characteristic

the Qur’ān, the word ṣalāh, for example, is attributed both to men
and God. When attributed to men, it connotes to pray and when
applied to God it means to bless. The word shukr is another such
example. When this word is used for men, it expresses showing
gratitude on some blessings and when applied to God, it connotes
considering and accepting the good deeds of the pious servants of
God.
Similarly, tawbah (relenting), sukht (resentment), makr
(planning), al-kayd (scheming), ’asif (regret), ḥasrah (grief) and
the like have different significations. In fact, no word in the
Arabic language is applied to God without considering its proper
signification. Whenever we use any word for God, we take onlyw[(, fore

night, day, morning, forenoon, winds, clouds, mountains, seas,
cities, man, father, son, male, female, odd and even. These are
but the same phenomena which are referred to as evidencing
facts in other places. Thus their status of being evidence has been
clearly explained by the Qur’ān itself in other places. These sign
verses serve for us as a precedence to interpret the oaths. We
may, therefore, not interpret such oaths as serving the purpose of
glorification of the things put as the muqsam bihī.
Third, the nature of the muqsam bihī itself shows that the oaths
have basically not been brought to refer to the glorification of
these things. No man endowed with the power of reason can
imagine God Almighty placing His creatures on the position of a
sacred deity, especially when these things are never supposed to
have any kind of sacredness attached to them. What glorification
do the panting horses and the winds that scatter dust have?
Things used as muqsam bihī, including the heavens, earth, sun,

says:
So I do call to witness what you see, and what you see not.
(Q 69:38-9)
This oath covers everything, hidden or manifest. This general
reference has been made at another occasion:
There is nothing which does not exalt Him with praises. (Q
17:44)
Everything in this universe praises Him and testifies to His
glory. This type of generalization of the muqsam bihī and the
signs of God resembles the use of opposites, as in instances
where God swears by night and day and by the heavens and the
earth. How can one believe that God glorified everything in
general terms? Their status as open signs is obvious and
understandable. Why then should we abandon the clear meaning
and opt for an improbable implication?
Sixth, at some occasions, evidentiary oaths follow warnings
and indications which lead to the fact that the things sworn by
serve as an evidence for the muqsam ‘alayhi. Consider the
following example:
The break of day, the ten nights, the even and the odd, and
the night when it moves on to its close, bear witness. Is there
not in it strong evidence for one possessed of understanding?
(Q 89:1-5)
What the latter part of the second verse mentioned above
implies follows most of the arguments found in the Qur’ān. It
has been said in Sūrah al-Naḥl (Q. 16):
In all these things there are signs for men of understanding.
(Q 16:12)
In Sūrah Ṭāhā (Q. 20), such arguments are followed by the
words:
Verily, in this are signs for those endowed with reason. (Q
20:54)

Similarly, it has been said in Āl-i ‘Imrān:
Verily, in this are signs for men endowed with discernment.
(Q 3:13)
Examples of this kind of oaths abound in the Qur’ān.
In5 Tw8 ‘Ims1 Tre fashion, ww8 Ims19(e)ms1 Te in the ver Ims19(e)ūrah al-Fajr that
the oaths sworn by the signs of God have been followed by
indication that these serve as signs and testimony for the people
of under tanding and insight.
Another such indication occurring after the oaths is found in
Sūrah al-Wāqi‘ah (Q. 56):
Nay, I cite as proof thw8 I7.3(hootin)3.4(g of )5.4(th)3.4(w8 tars. An

Eighth, in some cases, certain arguments and signs precede the
muqsam bihī. The muqsam bihī, in such instances follows
supportive arguments in a way that it clearly points to them. The
argumentative oaths are thus prefaced by clear arguments. Such
occasions also offer a very interesting study for a student of the
Qur’ānic structuredness. I explain this fact by the help of the
following example. It has been said in Sūrah al-Dhāriyāt:
On the earth are signs for those who believe and also in your
own selves. Do you not see? And in the heavens is your
sustenance, and also that which you are promised. (Q 51:20-
22)
These verses imply that the earth contains signs of the
Providence of God Almighty leading to the Last Day. Such signs
are scattered everywhere. Elsewhere, this fact has been further
explicated. We see that just after the mention of the earth and of
the heavens, which carry signs of the Last Judgment or of the
need of recompense, God has stated:
And by the Lord of the heavens and the earth it (i.e.
recompense and judgment and not the Qur’ān as many
commemorators have opined) is certainly the truth, it is as
true as you speak. (Q 51:23)
It is obvious that this oath, besides having an aspect of
glorification (for it is sworn by God), gives clear meaning of
argumentation, as it refers to the signs found in the heavens and
the earth. The muqsam bihī has been carefully expressed in such
a way as to point out the clear and manifest argumentation from
the empirical signs dealt with in the preceding verses. Since the
aspect of glorification of the muqsam bihī was more prominent
in this oath (which could have made the argumentative aspect of
the oath to disappear), simple and separate arguments have
prefaced the oath.
The above Qur’ānic proofs sufficiently validate my view. Still
however, someone may question this by asking why the correct
view has remained unclear to the earlier authorities. He may,
based on this, maintain that this novel approach is unconvincing.
We take up this issue in the coming section.
_______________

Section: 16
Causes of Obscurity of the Correct View
What I have mentioned regarding the views of the scholars in
the preceding chapters makes it clear that my view is not novel.
However, some aspects of this approach have not been open to
the earlier scholars. They did not stick to it fully, letting it off
their hands on one occasion, and mixing it with other theses at
another. I will now proceed to explain the causes of their failure
to understand and adhere to it fully, so that their excuses can be
identified.
First, at many places, the muqsam bihī by nature is a glorious
thing. The Qur’ān, the Mount Ṭūr, the city of Makkah, the sun,
moon, stars, time, night and day, all have some aspects of glory.
In such cases, the earlier scholars did not need to explain that the
oaths are argumentative in nature. They considered taking an
oath by the glorified and dignified things as common practice.
Whenever they found a muqsam bihī containing various
significations, they attached to it the meaning corresponding to
glory. This kept them from further study and thus they failed to
find the correct view and remained content with the most
ordinary and common interpretation. Water continues to flow to
the downside until it is hampered.
Second, our scholars generally adopt universally applicable
approaches. They are seldom attracted to an approach that cannot
be applied to even a certain part of the phenomenon. The
argumentative nature of the oaths of the Qur’ān, despite being so
pronounced in some cases, is less clear in others. When they did
not find this aspect of the oaths clear in all cases, they concluded
that it would be wrong to interpret the oaths as argumentative in
nature. It would be better if they had confessed their inability and
referred the issue to Almighty God, but they seldom show
humility and rarely confess their shortcomings. This is exactly
what happened with their attitude towards the question of

coherence in the Qur’ān. The coherence in the Qur’ān is obvious
and palpable in most cases. Only a few places offer difficulties.
Had they again here confessed their lack of knowledge as some
of them have done, it would be more befitting to them. But we

Third, when the scholars, especially the earliest ones, noticed
that oaths are mostly sworn by Almighty God or His sha‘ā’ir,
they were led to assume that it was the essence and crux of the

muqsam ‘alayhi. Since the detail of such punishment stories was
not helpful in understanding the principle beliefs and major
directives, our scholars did not find it very demanding to fully
discuss them.
Fifth, (this cause is apparently similar to the previous one) our
scholars have always cherished rational and historical disciplines
and have attached less importance to more excellent branches of
knowledge in tafsīr, including the language of the Qur’ān and of
the earlier Scriptures, the history of the Semitic nations, their
disciplines and their culture. Since this problem does not have a
direct bearing specifically upon the Qur’ānic oaths, we do not go
into detailed discussion in this regard. Indeed I do not find it
necessary to cover all the causes of failure to understand the true
nature of such oaths. Therefore, I conclude this discussion at this
point. I believe this short exposure to the issue is sufficient.
_______________

Section: 17
Rhetorical Aspect and Intricacies of Oath
If these oaths are arguments, then why has this not been plainly
mentioned? We need to appreciate that there are different levels
and various kinds of argumentative discourse. There are some
contended issues to which humans are not psychologically
attracted to. There could be some other issues for which they do
not feel an aversion. The problems of physics, mathematics or
the history of earlier nations are such examples. In this case, the
arguments are better put plainly. However, sometimes we need
to argue for issues which have a psychological aspect. In such
issues, both the addressor and the audience develop a kind of
inclination or reluctance, deterrence or condescension, and
insistence or importunity. In these matters, it is considered
necessary to argue at different levels. One employs different
styles of expression with varied degree of clarity, intricacy,
sharpness and persuasion.
At times, one feels it necessary to change a style of expression.
He intends to avoid offending the audience. He may do so in
hope that some of the styles of expression may prove more
successful in convincing the audience. This last approach has
been clearly referred to in the Qur’ān. The Almighty says:
See how we expound our verses in various ways that they
may understand! (Q 6:65)
Abraham (sws) adopted this very approach while dealing with
the one who argued with him about the Lord. Abraham (sws) did
not insist on the first argument he had offered. He, on the
contrary, brought forward another argument which was,
according to him, more readily understandable for the
interlocutor. Thus “the disbeliever was confounded.” (Q 2:258)
This is summary of my response to the above mentioned
question. Another important thing is that, in an instance of

argumentation couched in the style of oaths, there are useful
indicators opening up various doors of rhetorical devices. Such
devices are further decorated by layers of beauties of style. I
wish to explain such important points to you which will help you
see the rhetorical beauties of this style of argumentation.
First, it produces firm emphatic statements. This is clearly
noticeable in the statements attributed to the Christian Apostles
as quoted in the Qur’ān:
They said: “Our Lord knows that we are, indeed His
Messengers to you and our duty is only plain delivery of the
Message.” (Q 36:16-7)
Similarly at another occasion, the Almighty says:
This sky brimful of rain and the earth which splits bear
witness that this is a decisive word and it is no jest. (Q 86: 11-
14)
The Arabs knew that when a cultivated and free man took an
oath, he in fact externalize36.44.4(ghty)d t full tHe negated
any aspect of frivoly on .44.part. This 44.4hy d the oaths have
been abundantl ty used in the revelations coming down in
beginning of the Prophetic call. The seriousness and solemnity
from the Prophet’s (sws) part was thus full ty conveyed to his
audience. This has been clearly indicated to in both of the above
mentioned verses. This objective was achieved because of a
certain characteristic of the oaths. It was not obtained because of
glorification of the muqsam bihī. This can be further explained
by an example. We sometimes emphasize our assertions and
negations by putting them in the form of simple or exclamatory
questions or stressed exclamations. These expressions are
formed by the help of words of address. For example, they say
“yā lalmā’i (flood!!)” when they find a sudden flood of water.
Such expressions add to the element of seriousness and firmness
on the part of the speaker.
Second, oaths are exclamator ty in their form. They do not leave
the interlocutor yy opportunity to reject it. He could,
however, reject the muqsam ‘alayhi. This is because the muqsam
‘alayhi is in the form of a positive statement. He can in no way
reject the oat itself because it is an exclamation. Exclamations

do not accept any negation. Oaths in this respect are similar to a
ṣifah (adjective). It is not possible for one to promptly reject a
ṣifah. This is possible only because of the structure of the oath
and the ṣifah. Otherwise, semaos2.1aBy, both are positive
assertions liable to be rejected or accepted.
Sometimes, the Qur’ānic oaths make use of these things
simultaneously. The oaths sworn by the glorious Qur’ān, the
promised day, the distributors of the affairs, the distinguishing
ones, or the ranking ones are examples. If we anaByze and
explain any of these oaths, we see that they are but two distinct
positive and informative sentences. They may be paraphrased as
follows: “The angels are ranked in lines like slaves, the winds
differentiate and distinguish by the order of God, these people
have an appointed day, and this Qur’ān is glorified. All these
things are positive statements (akhbār) couched in the form of
attributes.” This style of swearing an oath further made use of
the argumentative nature of these things. It has, therefore, been
claimed that all these things are signs and arguments which
prove certain theses.
If, at any occasion, the interlocutor is expected to be able to
respond with negation, then various other techniques are used to
avert such a strike. Thus at times the address is directed at the
Prophet (sws) [instead of the real addressee], as has been done in
the following verse:
This is Sūrah Yāsīn. By the Qur’ān full of wisdom, you are
indeed one of the Messengers. (Q 36:1-3)
In some other occasions the complement of the oath which has
to be in the form of positive statement is suppressed. In such
cases, only the muqsam bihī suffices for the purpose. However,
instantly afterwards another theme is introduced which
corroborates the suppressed complement of the oath so that the
interlocutor does not find enough respite to interpret the
injunctive sentence as a positive statement and start arguing
against it. At such occasions, the addressee turns to listen to what
follows the oath. He is instantly faced with new things which
further strengthen the preceding arguments. Consider the
following example:
This is Sūrah Ṣād. We cite as proof the Qur’ān, full of

exhortation. But the disbelievers are steeped in false pride
and enmity. (Q 38:1-2)
Here the injunctive sentence has been considered sufficient and
the informative sentence has been avoided. The attribute of the
Qur’ān has taken the stead of the informative sentence. The
whole could thus be paraphrased as follows: “The Qur’ān bears
witness to the fact that it is the reminder and exhortation for
them.” The attributes of the real addressees have been put. They
were not in a position to deny it. Rather they took pride in those
qualities. It has been explained that their rejection of the message
is a product of their ignorant zealotry and their enmity for the
truth.
Another such example from the Qur’ān follows:
This is Sūrah Qāf. By the glorious Qur’ān! But they wonder
that there has come to them a warner from among themselves.
These disbelievers say: “This is aeQ 50:1-2)
These verses tell us that the glorious Qur’ān itself bears witness
to the fact that it is a very clear warner for them from Almighty
God. They, however, are rejecting it only because they deem it
quiteethat such a task of warning has been entrusted to a
commoner among themselves.
However, if something sworn is of the kind in which the
addressee does not negate, then the complement of the oath has
not been suppressed. Consider the following example:
This is Sūrah Hāmīm. This perspicuous Book is sure
evidence to the fact that we have made it an Arabic Qur’ān
that you may understand. (Q 43:1-3)
This oath s that the Qur’ ān is a clear book. The
complement of the oath affirms that it is an Arabic Qur’ān. Both
of these things were acceptable to the addressees. As for its
being a revelation of God, it has not been distinctively claimed.
This is in fact implied in theehas attributed it
to Himself.85
This was to make sure that the addressees could not
85. The Almighty says: “We have made it Arabic Qur’ān.” This
implies that the Qur’ān is the book revealed by God. This fact however

instantly turn to negate the implied and intended message.
Were it not for the fear of lengthiness and departure from the
real issue, we would have explained in detail the suppression of
the muqsam ‘alayhi and the benefits of suppressing it. Rather, we
believe that it would be better to explain these issues under the
commentary on the oath verses.86
Third, oaths afford a compact and brief style. Clarity of
meaning in a particular style of expression is added with the
degree of brevity it displays. In brief and compact statements, the
real meaning is not lost in verbiage. Thus brevity adds to the
clarity and the force of the expression. Compact statements, one
can say, sharpen the expression and bring the audience near to
the meaning. This is exactly why metaphor is often considered a
more effective rhetorical device than the simile. We do not feel a
need to explain the importance and beauty of brevity of
expression, for it can be learned from any book on balāghah

arguments, the coherence would have been destroyed, and the
force of argument lost. Another example is perhaps that of the
oaths occurring in Sūrah al-Fajr (Q. 89), al-Shams (Q. 91) and
al-Layl (Q. 92).
The Arabs, because of their intelligence and their pride, were
fonder of brevity than other people. This is why we find that
everything in the Qur’ān is characterized by compactness. Fewer
words carry more meaning. If the Qur’ān expansively explains a
theme in one aspect, it puts it in brevity at other occasions
highlighting other aspects. This also addresses the assertion that
the niceties of the Qur’ān will never exhaust.
Fourth, oaths let the audience participate in adducing evidence.
This helps remove the sense of confrontation from their minds.
Humans find a conclusion more pleasing and agreeable when
they themselves reach at it after due conseat
facts. On the contrary, if a speaker spoon-feeds the audience,
disallowing them an active part in the discourse, he bores them
and makes the dialogue hard even if they are convinced of the
evidence. An unconvinced audience would no doubt run from
the speaker and shut their ears on the whole debate. The speaker
loses both ways.
Employment of oaths to furnish arguments in a way resembles
the use of questions instead of simple informative sentences. We
often say: “Do you not see?” or “have you consea
The Prophet (sws) used this technique in his last sermon when
he asked his audience: “Which city is this? Which month is this?
What day is today?” (Bukhārī, No: 1652) This way, the speaker
acquires attention of the audience who are naturally attracted to
this kind of interactive dialogue. The Qur’ān has used both these
techniques simultaneously in the beginning of Sūrah al-Fajr (Q.
ān calls to witness various natural phenomena
and invites the audience to think and ponaver the divine
planning, decrees, and justice exhibited by these. This has then
been followed by the divine saying:
Do not you see in it strong evidence fo2 one possessed of
unag? (Q 89:1-5)
A similar example is the following v
The sky and those which appear in the night—and what do

you understand what those which appear in the night are?
Shining stars—bear witness that. (Q 86:1-3)
Intelligent debaters lead the audience to their claims smoothly
without condemning the latter’s view. This makes their audience
think that they have reached the conclusion themselves. This

This sentence is informative in some aspects. Still, however, it
is not simple argumentation. This thesis, for example, could be
simply put as follows: “Indeed man is loser in the end, for every
passing day cuts his age.” This line of reasoning, in spite of
being self evident and clear, invites rejection from an
argumentative mind; or if the contender does not reject it, he will
not find it difficult to negate the conclusions this statement leads
to, i.e. relying on faith and pious deeds. He may claim: “No, man
is in great benefit. He buys what he cherishes and wins what he
desires during this ephemeral life.” Or, he may respond thus:
“We know that we cannot escape death. Therefore we should
enjoy the pleasures of life.” This is what Imru’ al-Qays, the
wretched and strayed poet says:
Enjoy beautiful women and drinks, pleasure of this world.
You are mortal after all.87

The oaths, when occurring in the start of the sūrahs, shine forth
like glaring prominent marks. They rarely occur in the middle of
the sūrahs. Wherever they occur in the middle, they function as a
refrain in an ode.
Oaths are not basically used to embellish expressions. However,
since they inaugurate the sūrahs in most cases, they work as
embellishers as well. Such excellent and pictorial expressions
have been employed in the oaths as are used in introductions to
books or eloquent sermons. Such a beautiful start often fills the
eyes and the heart of the audience with awe and beauty. Nothing
works better as pictorial expression than the oaths. When you
swear by a thing, you present it before the audience as a witness to
your claim. You evoke imagery.
sū

claim. In this style, a matter is put before the adversary. This
matter itself leads him to the conclusion which corroborates the
claim of the speaker. If a disputant is already made aware of the
claim upon which the evidence is brought, he can take the
discussion around any other point. This can in turn give him an
opportunity to avoid the right conclusion. On the contrary, if the
claim is not disclosed to him before he has considered the
argument, there is a great chance that he be eventually led to the
right conclusion. If he is successfully put on the right path, he is
easily led to the final conclusion. The examples illustrating this
fact have been mentioned in the fourth and the fifth points above.
Eighth, oaths are multifaceted and rich expressions. The
argumentative aspect of the muqsam bihī is not explicitly
mentioned. If a singular aspect of the argument is mentioned, it
will lead to only a single piece of evidence. But we know that at
times a single thing contains a line of meaning and variety of

make the reader of the Book to discover different aspects of the
various possible proofs from the mentioned created things for the
stated beliefs.
If two different interpreters agree on the basic claim while
pondering over the verses and keeping the coherence of the text
in consideration, there is nothi

Section: 18
Desirable and Undesirable Oath
Since oaths are sworn in order either to present oneself or the
Almighty as witness to some facts, in both cases, the oath-taker
puts his honor or religion on stake. It is not something to play
with. This entails that an oath may not be taken unless in grave
matters and that too with solemn resolution. This is why it has
been forbidden in certain cases:
i. from the perspective of muqsam ‘alayhi
ii. from the perspective of muqsam bihī
iii. from the perspective of the both.
i. Whoever takes an oath in every petty matter proves to be an
unserious person. Such a man does not succeed in upholding his
personal honor. That is why the Almighty has forbidden this act
in the Qur’ān. The relevant Qur’ānic verse uses very emphatic
language. The Almighty says:
Heed not every despicable (mahīn) swearer (ḥallāf). (Q 68:10)
Whoever takes to swearing an oath on every petty matter puts
himself down no matter he swears by God or anything else. He is
an unreasonable person who gets enraged or laughs out without
provocation. This renders swearing undesirable considering the
muqsam ‘alayhi.
ii. Swearing a religious oath in the name of other than God is
tantamount to taking that entity as partner besides God. The
prohibition to take an oath by an entity other than God generally
shuts the door for polytheism. This is identical to the prohibition
to prostrate oneself before other than God or carving idols as
stated in the tenth commandments. Thus swearing by other than
God is prohibited. It has been said in the Old Testament:

You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall
take oaths in His name. (Deuteronomy 6:13)
Similarly the Prophet (sws) too prohibited taking oaths by
anything other than God.
3. Sometimes a man swears by God upon every petty matter.
Such an act combines two things, lack of personal honor and
absence of God-consciousness (taqwā). The following saying of
God Almighty refers to this aspect of oaths.
And do not use God’s name as an excuse in your oaths. (Q
2:224)
Under these considerations, oaths are to be avoided. Other than
this, it is allowable to swear especially under social necessities
discussed in the seventh and tenth section of this work.
The Islamic sharī‘ah has been revealed for the entire humanity.
It is applicable till the Day of Judgment. It takes into account the
social and cultural needs of human beings. It does not impose
strict detailed laws in matters pertaining to cultural aspect of life.
It also considers the inherent weakness of human nature as has
been alluded to in the following verse of the Qur’ān:
God desires to lighten your burden, for man has been created
weak. (Q 4: 28)
Therefore, it was not appropriate to promulgate absolute
prohibition to swear an oath, an unavoidable proceeding in the
conducting of important religious and social issues. Similarly the
sharī‘ah has not held unintentional conversational oaths as
punishable. In this regard, the Almighty says:
God shall not call you to account for your inadvertent oaths.
However, He shall hold you accountable for the ones that you
take with intention in your hearts. Indeed God is the
Forgiving, the Tolerant. (Q 2:225)
Actions are judged by intentions. Inadvertent oaths, though
reflect incivility, are not punishable. The Lord of men forgives
His servants. He showers mercy on them considering their
weakness. He does not hold them accountable for small and

insignificant errors.
The above discussion specifically pertains to the general oaths.
As for the Qur’ānic oaths they are clearly oaths of evidence, and
there is no danger of losing religion and honor in taking such an
oath. No disgrace attaches them.
The Qur’

Section: 19
Evangelical Prohibition of Oath
We know that Gospels as we have them are not the original
text delivered by Jesus (sws). What we have in our hands is the
translations of the original Injīl. The Gospels mix the sayings of
Jesus Christ (sws) with the statements of the reporters. Its
narratives vary and sometimes mutu

Similarly it has been stated in the Gospel of Luke that he went
out into a mountain and spent his night in prayer to God. He
called unto him his disciples. He chose twelve disciples from
among them. This description follows Jesus’ (sws) famous
sermon. He said:
Blessed be you poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you that hunger now: for you shall be filled. [….]
(Luke 6: 20-1) Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and
when they shall separate you from their company, and shall
reproach you, and cast out your name as evil. [….] (Luke 6:
22) But woe unto you that are rich! for you have received
your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for you shall
hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for you shall mourn
and weep. (Luke 6: 24-5)
Second, this sermon contains directives which only relate to the
poor and the destitute. We see that the Prophet Jesus (sws) has not
only forbidden taking oaths, he has also proscribed accumulating
wealth, hording it for future use, and preserving one’s honor and
self respect. The last directive received so much stress and
emphasis from him that he exhorted his disciples on the following:
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other
also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from
taking your tunic also. Give to everyone who asks you, and if
anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
(Luke 6: 39-30)
Third, some directives included in this sermon apparently
abrogate some of the directives of the Torah. Jesus (sws),
however, avoids this clearly. He expressly negated such a notion
even before he mentioned these commands in his sermon. He
says:
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I
did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Mathew 5:16)
He also removed another possible confusion: moral and
religious excellence does not require self-denial. He explained

that self-denial is an additional virtue. While opting for
asceticism and self-denial one escapes sins at the stake of
avoiding the trial of the world in which he has been put through.
Jesus (sws) adopted this behavior himself only to guide those
who cannot attain religious and moral perfection otherwise. He
declared:
Student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully
trained will be like his teacher. (Luke 6: 40)
The innovators did not find it agreeable to consider self-denial
and asceticism as an additional virtue. They, therefore, added the
following words in the Gospel of Matthew:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5: 48)
The same sentence in Luke has been changed into the following:
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:36)
This is obviously absurd. How can the status of God be receded
to that of His mortal servants? Still, however, the truth has
remained transparent and has survived adulterations in spite of
its enemies. Let us see how he has stated what defies any
possibility of polytheistic sense and explains that Jesus’ (sws)
perfection which he attained through renouncing the world was
an additional virtue specifically meant for the poor. It has been
reported in Matthew:
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked: “Teacher, what good
thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you call me as
good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you
want to enter life, obey the commandments.” “Which ones?”
the man inquired. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not
commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as
yourself.” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What
do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect,
go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will
have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the

young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had
great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the
truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

people of the past. These are not permanent divine directives
guiding people to achieve excellence in social behavior and
secure cultivation of the self. This does not form part of the
everlasting law of God which is the conspicuous characteristic of
the Islamic sharī‘ah

Section: 20
Wisdom behind Specificness of the Command
Christians do not find it imperative to reconcile the received
knowledge with reason. They believe that the religion operates
beyond reason. However, some of them, with philosophical
tendencies, endeavored to defend their religion against all kinds
of rational attacks. However, for this love for rationalization of
religion, they are always condemned and branded as heretics by
both the scholars and the commoners among their co-religionists.
Famous religious philosopher and thinker Spinoza who was an
expert in Hebrew language is one such scholar.
Before I deal with my understanding of these exhortations, I
wish to present the view of this philosopher concerning these
directives. This will enable us understand that he agrees with me
as far as the specificness of these commands to a particular
group living under particular circumstances is concerned. This
will also help us understand difference between the approaches
of the Christian and Muslim scholars. It will also help us see that
my view, besides being explicitly well established, is more
respectful to the sharī‘ah of the Prophet Jesus (sws).
Spinoza believes that Jesus Christ (sws) commanded his
followers what amounts to surrendering before and showing
humility to the oppressors. This was, he says, because at the time
this directive was issued his followers were under the tyrant
rulers. He had to command them not to show resistance to the
evil. He required them to offer their cheeks for slaps among
other similar things. According to Spinoza, these directives were
not given considering the objectives of virtue, religiosity or
beauty of manners. These, quite distinctly, corresponded to their
political status at that time. It was the best affordable and
expedient approach in those circumstances.
This scholar has great knowledge of the lives of the Prophets
and enjoys profound understanding of their books. He holds that

Quranic oaths

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (17)

Semelhante a Quranic oaths

Semelhante a Quranic oaths (20)

Mais de True Religion

Mais de True Religion (20)

Último

Último (20)

Quranic oaths